JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.372 of 2018 dated 30.07.2018 pending on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.) 1. This petition was filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.372 of 2018 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent. 2. The defacto complainant, namely, Ramakrishnan/the second respondent gave a complaint before the first respondent to the effect that there was a shortage of Cargo (Cashew nut) that was imported from the port of Cotonou, Benin, Africa to the port of Tuticorin and the defacto complainant has alleged that the petitioners were responsible for the shortage of Cargo. On receipt of the complaint from the second respondent, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.372 of 2018 for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 406, 407, 418, 425, 461, 465, 468, 467 and 482 of IPC. 3. The case of the petitioners is that, as per the terms of the Bill of Lading, the contractual duty and obligation of the petitioners ends the moment containers are discharged with the seals intact and proper weight measured in the port of discharge. According to the petitioners, once the Equipment Interchange Receipt (EIR) is issued by the Tuticorin Port, the obligation of the petitioners comes to an end. Any shortage of Cargo thereafter or tampering with seal can never be put against the writ petitioners. 4. During the pendency of this petition, the first petitioner, namely, MSC Agency (India) Private Limited was given up and the investigation was focused as against the second petitioner. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted a report and the relevant portion in the report are extracted hereunder: “........... “TAMIL” “TAMIL” 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor by pointing out the said report submitted that there is no material available against the second petitioner to proceed further with the investigation. However, the respondent Police will continue with the investigation as against undetected accused persons in this case and take this case to its logical end. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent brought to the notice of this Court the survey report that was prepared after joint Inspection made by the petitioner company and the second respondent. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent brought to the notice of this Court the survey report that was prepared after joint Inspection made by the petitioner company and the second respondent. The cause of shortage as could be seen from the survey report is extracted hereunder: “Cause of shortage: 1. Our client provided us with the photographs of the seals affixed on the two containers (MEDU3713630 & GLDU5589131) at Load Port. When they were compared to the destination seals, there were differences in: - The seal numbers' font size. - Spacing between the seal numbers and the bar code. (please refer Photo Nos.1 to 4) 2. For seal Nos.EU11692153 & EU11692154, their numbers were observed only on the female. The male was plain without any numbers. For the remaining six seals, the seal numbers were observed on the both the male and female. 3. Using a QR Scanner Mobile App, we read the bar code on all the 8 seals. The details were as under. Seal Number Bar Code Number Remark 1.EU11692150 EU11692150 Numbers concur 2.EU11692151 EU11692151 Numbers concur 3.EU11692152 EU11692152 Numbers concur 4.EU11692155 EU11692155 Numbers concur 5.EU11692156 EU11692156 Numbers concur 6.EU11692171 EU11692171 Numbers concur 7.EU11692153 EU11048589 Numbers differ 8.EU11692154 EU11048588 Numbers differ (Please refer photo Nos.9 to 16) 4. On a closer look, a slight compression mark of about 24mm X 6mm was observed on seal Nos.EU11692153 & EU11692154 in the area where the seal numbers were printed. No such compression marks were found in the other 6 seals. All the above facts indicate that: 1. The seals found affixed on container Nos.MEDU3713630 & GLDU5589131 were some old, unused stock of genuine MSC Line seals. 2. Their numbers in their original form, as per their bar code reading, were EU11048589 and EU11048588 3. These numbers had been skillfully changed to EU11692153 and EU11692154 In view of the foregoing we are of the opinion, that the two seal Nos.EU11692153 and EU11692154, found on container Nos.MEDU3713630 and GLDU5589131 respectively, were fake ones and they were put on the above containers after pilferage of cargo in transit.” 7. These numbers had been skillfully changed to EU11692153 and EU11692154 In view of the foregoing we are of the opinion, that the two seal Nos.EU11692153 and EU11692154, found on container Nos.MEDU3713630 and GLDU5589131 respectively, were fake ones and they were put on the above containers after pilferage of cargo in transit.” 7. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that even if the first respondent Police is not able to find any material as against the second petitioner, that does not mean that the respondent Police will bring the investigation to a grinding halt and they must be directed to continue further with the investigation in order to find out the real culprit. The learned counsel further requested this Court to direct the petitioners to extend their co-operation by submitting the relevant documents to enable the second respondent to make insurance claim in this regard. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they will provide whatever documents are available with them to the second respondent and that the petitioners will not stand in the way of the second respondent making any insurance claim towards the loss sustained by him. 9. In view of the above development, this Criminal Original petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The first respondent Police is directed to continue further with the investigation by treating this case as a case against unidentified accused persons and all efforts shall be made to identify the accused persons and complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible. (ii) There shall be a direction to the petitioners to furnish all the documents in their possession to the second respondent and co-operate with the second respondent to enable the second respondent to make insurance claim and (iii) It will be left open to the second respondent to independently make the insurance claim for the loss sustained by them in the transaction. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.